On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 11:45:13AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:36:48AM +0100, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> > On ARM64, when the BPF JIT compiler fills the JIT image body with
> > opcodes during translation of eBPF into ARM64 opcodes, we may fail
> > for several reasons during that phase: one being that we jump to
> > the notyet label for not yet supported eBPF instructions such as
> > BPF_ST. In that case we only free offsets, but not the actual
> > allocated target image where opcodes are being stored. Fix it by
> > calling module_free() on dismantle time in case of errors.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <dbork...@redhat.com>
> > Cc: Zi Shen Lim <zlim....@gmail.com>
> > Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <a...@plumgrid.com>
> > Cc: Will Deacon <will.dea...@arm.com>
> > ---
> > [ Compile-tested only. ]
> >
> > arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 4 +++-
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> > index 38c4296..7ae3354 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> > @@ -651,8 +651,10 @@ void bpf_int_jit_compile(struct bpf_prog *prog)
> > build_prologue(&ctx);
> >
> > ctx.body_offset = ctx.idx;
> > - if (build_body(&ctx))
> > + if (build_body(&ctx)) {
> > + module_free(NULL, ctx.image);
> > goto out;
> > + }
> >
>
> Looks good to me:
>
> Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.dea...@arm.com>
>
> Catalin, can you apply this on the for-next/core branch, please?
Applied, thanks.
--
Catalin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
